Prior solutions exist for tracking copy jobs requested at a hard copy device. Typically, these solutions are referred to generally as cost recovery systems. One such system is sold by Equitrac Corporation, 836 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Coral Gables, Fla. 33134, and includes a DCT control terminal, Printlog software, and a transaction server. Such system forms a cost recovery system that uses client-based software that is installed within a user's environment, typically on a client PC. Details of such system are available on the Internet at Equitrac's website, http://www.equitrac.com. However, there are several disadvantages of such prior art systems in that they provide incomplete information and they are costly.
One problem with prior art cost recovery systems is that information made available tends to be insufficient to track many kinds of print jobs. For example, server-based systems offer support on a specific network protocol only, and consequently cannot track who printed print jobs that use certain other protocols. For example, Blue Lance is a server-based system that offers support only on Novell IPX and cannot track print jobs that use TCP/IP, Netbui, or Netbios protocols.
Another problem with prior art cost recovery systems is that special software needs to be installed on the server-based hard copy device. For example, Equitrac systems require the use of Printlog software. The addition of such software complicates the system environment. Solutions like those provided by Equitrac, that require client-based software to be installed, are difficult to implement, debug, and maintain, particularly when implemented within environments that have many client PCs. For example, the difficulty of having to install software on every client in a 1,500 seat PC environment would be enormous.
Yet another problem with prior art cost recovery systems is that they tend to be highly inaccurate at counting paper usage, and tend to only guess at toner usage. Inaccuracies result from miscounting, counting the wrong events, guessing at toner usage, and estimating actual paper costs. This problem tends to be the most significant factor in why prior art cost recovery systems are inadequate.
Miscounting by prior art cost recovery systems leads to inaccuracy because present solutions that rely on client-PC software count pages that are considered as having been printed once they have been sent to the hard copy device. However, the sending of a print job to a hard copy device does not always lead to an actual print job being realized on the hard copy device. For example, where the hard copy device is a laser printer, and if the printer jams, a server print queue gets reset, and/or a proof and hold job is cancelled, the pages in the print job are counted even though they are not printed. However, no such print job has actually occurred, which means that the number of pages that has been counted is inaccurate.
Counting the wrong event occurs when counting is carried out at the wrong location by prior art cost recovery systems. Inaccuracy results because count data representing the number of pages sent in a print job is taken from the wrong place in the print process. The best place to count hard copy pages that have been printed is on the output side of a hard copy device. However, prior art techniques do not count at this location. For example, where the hard copy device is a laser printer, the count should be carried out at a more accurate location. Only by counting at a more accurate location will the system know for sure what has been printed. Prior art techniques take measurements upstream of the fuser, usually by counting the pages that are submitted for printing by a print job request. However, such measurements taken upstream from the fuser are subject to confounding by such things as PC, LAN, server, printer replenishables availability, end-users getting frustrated, power-cycling of the device, and walk-up print on demand which calls up print jobs that are stored in memory on the device (and where Equitrac is provided on a system, Equitrac cannot count such print jobs).
Another disadvantage of prior art solutions is caused because guessing and/or overly broad averaging is implemented in order to determine the amount of toner that has been utilized. Typically, many cost recovery systems assume that toner coverage is approximately 8% of page area that is used in a print job. However, actual toner coverage can vary significantly from this rough estimate, or guess. For the few cases where toner coverage is measured, it is typically measured so infrequently that there is little or no possibility that individual users can be accurately charged for the toner usage that has occurred when submitting their individual print jobs. For example, these few systems will measure toner usage over a monthly or annual basis, or upon the renewal of a pay-per-page contract, which tends to happen infrequently.
Yet another disadvantage of prior art solutions is caused when rounding and overly broad averaging is utilized in order to estimate paper usage or cost. Present cost recovery systems count “clicks” utilizing a simple electromechanical counter that is affixed to the hard copy output device. For example, a relatively simple electromechanical counter is provided on many copy machines. Such electromechanical counter device is similar to a car odometer which increments one unit for each page that is output by the device. Typically, letter size paper and legal size paper are each counted as one “click”. Ledger size is typically counted as two “clicks”. However, this does not make the paper usage cost proportional to the actual usage. For example, legal size paper will utilize more paper than the letter size page, and will incur greater costs proportionately thereto. Accordingly, utilization of simple electromechanical counter devices on a hard copy output device only roughly estimates paper costs. Accordingly, customers are charged one “click”, two “clicks”, or four “clicks” per impression, rather than in more accurate mathematical proportion to the paper that is actually used. As a result, the methodology of rounding the number of “clicks” makes tracking paper costs easier to understand, but also makes such tracking inaccurate. Hence, there exists a need to provide an improved cost recovery system capable of monitoring paper usage more accurately.